Science Meets Religion

[Note: This appeared earlier on the Math Drudge blog, which is edited by David H. Bailey and Jonathan M. Borwein.]

Recently considerable attention has been drawn to the fact that some errors were found in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, and the fact that, as revealed in a set of emails exchanged by some leading climate scientists in the U.K., the report had been “dressed” to some extent. Many now claim that there is a full-scale conspiracy of the scientific world to hide the “truth” from the public, a view now apparently held by 16% of Americans, according to a recent poll [Broder; Vanderhooft].

Similar claims have been made about modern evolutionary biology. The recent movie “Expelled” claimed that creationist and “intelligent design” writers have been systematically “shut out” due to a “conspiracy” among the scientific establishment. Now, the two movements have joined forces to some extent, as legislators in several U.S. states are introducing legislation to require that students be taught “all sides of evidence” on evolution and global warming [Kaufman].

We certainly do not intend, in this column, to launch into a full-scale analysis of the claims of either group. With regards to creationism and “intelligent design,” numerous scientists have amply demonstrated that their claims are either refuted by the findings of multiple peer-reviewed published studies, or, in any event, fail to rise to anywhere near the level needed to challenge existing theories of geology and biology [SMR-creationism; SMR-ID].

With regards to global warming, we see no reason not to accept the overall consensus of the climate science community, namely that the planet is warming, and that this warming is due, at least in part, to human causes and is likely to increase in the future. We note, for instance, the indisputable fact that COs is a greenhouse gas (this can be confirmed in simple laboratory experiments), that levels of CO2 have increased significantly in the past few decades as compared with previous centuries (this is well-established from analyses of ice core samples), and that the decade 2000-2009 had the highest overall average temperature of any decade since accurate measurements began (confirmed by recently-announced NASA satellite data) [RealClimate; Revkin; NASA]. Further, human effects on climate have been confirmed in peer-reviewed studies for [Marshall]:

• The rise in global surface air temperature;
• The rise in surface air temperature over every continent, including Antarctica;
• The rise in atmospheric humidity (caused by the higher air temperatures);
• The rise in precipitation (rain, snow, etc) around the world, as a result of the higher humidities;
• Shifts in precipitation: dry tropical regions are getting drier while wet regions closer to the poles are getting wetter;
• The huge losses of Arctic summer sea ice;
• The rise in surface ocean temperature;
• Increasing salinity in the Atlantic Ocean.

It is important to keep an open mind, since future findings might draw some of these conclusions into question, but we see no reason to doubt that the process of peer review in the climate science field is capable of resolving whatever issues arise.

We also note that leading figures in the global warming denial community have ties to conservative research institutes funded in large measure by large corporations and oil companies [Sachs]. Fred Singer, arguably the leading figure of the community, has only six peer-reviewed publications in the climate science field, and none since 1997 [Singer]. In a similar vein, several of the leading writers in the “intelligent design” community are funded by conservative research institutes closely connected to the evangelical world, drawing into question their claims that they are merely doing objective, secular science. Philip Johnson, a leading intelligent design writer, is a retired law professor with no scientific credentials or peer-reviewed scientific publications [SMR-ID].

In any event, it is clear to us that those who lead the currently trendy movement to deny global warming (or to deny human causation of global warming), like creationists, “intelligent design” writers and the many “mathematicians” who keep our mail boxes and Inboxes flooded with claims that pi is rational or other similar nonsense, are operating well outside the established boundaries of peer-reviewed science, and thus, from these reasons alone, are deserving of considerable skepticism.

To begin with, there is a proper forum for debating scientific controversies, one that has been established for centuries and is an essential part of what is properly known as modern science. This forum is most assuredly not lectures, blogs, twitters, do-it-yourself websites, newspaper columns, Fox TV News, or state, provincial or national legislative bodies. Instead the proper forum for scientific debate is the system of peer-reviewed scientific journals and conferences sponsored by major scientific societies. If you see these issues being “debated” in any other setting, you can be assured that the discussion is decidedly “bush league” and not worth taking seriously as scientific debate.

Think of it this way: the next time you see a global warming denier or a creationist or an “intelligent design” writer or even some self-styled “mathematician” making a convincing-sounding argument in a lecture, blog, website or news column, ask yourself the following question: “If he/she really had a solid argument, why isn’t he/she back in the office furiously writing up this material for submission to a leading journal, thereby assuring him/herself future worldwide fame and glory?”

After all, overturning some long-held paradigm is what science and mathematics is all about. Much of the day-to-day work of a real scientist or mathematician is, frankly, somewhat tedious. Every mathematician dreams of being the first to prove (or, perhaps better, disprove) some long-standing conjecture or result. Every physicist dreams of being the first to uncover evidence that counters some decades- or centuries-old theory, or to publish a new mathematical theory that will, like Einstein’s papers on relativity, open up new realms of understanding. Every biologist dreams of finding a completely new species or biochemical feature that refutes some long-held assumption about how the natural world operates.

In many cases, those who attempt to grasp the public attention through other means are themselves well aware that they are short-circuiting this process, and, if pressed, further recognize that they do not really have an argument that could withstand the withering scrutiny of scientific peer review. They often allude to conspiracy or malign forces, or they latch onto underwhelming scientific constructionist arguments [Brown] to impute the scientific enterprise in toto. Thus, when they press their views in public — to a populace that for the most part does not understand how the scientific enterprise operates — they are either being more than a little bit dishonest or else are hugely ignorant (and thus unqualified to be pressing their case).

As mentioned above, some have claimed that various sectors of the scientific community are engaged in a “conspiracy” to silence critics and to keep the “truth” from the public. To a real scientist or mathematician, such claims are most absurd nonsense. How, in a worldwide community of hundreds of thousands of competitive researchers, from every nation on earth and from countless different cultural backgrounds, could a secret “conspiracy” be maintained? As Ben Franklin wrote in his Poor Richard’s Almanac, “Three can keep a secret, provided two of them are dead.” Or as one of us quipped, tongue-in-cheek, in response to a state legislator who was skeptical of evolution, “You have no idea how humiliating this is to me — there is a secret conspiracy among leading scientists, but no one deemed me important enough to be included!”

Here is another way to think about such claims: There are tens of thousands of senior scientists in their late 50s or early 60s who have seen their retirement savings decimated by the recent stock market plunge, and who now wonder if the day will ever come when they are financially well off enough to do their research without the constant stress and distraction of applying for grants (the majority of which are never funded). All one of these scientists has to do to garner both worldwide fame and considerable fortune (e.g., book contracts) is to call a news conference and expose the “truth.” Why isn’t this happening?

The system of peer-reviewed journals and conferences sponsored by major professional societies is the only proper forum for the presentation and review of new ideas, in any field of science or mathematics. It has been stunningly successful: errors have been uncovered, fraud has been rooted out and bogus scientific claims (such as the 1903 N-ray claim, the 1989 cold fusion claim and the more recent assertion of an autism-vaccination link) have been rapidly debunked. This all occurs with a level of reliability and at a speed that is hard to imagine in other human endeavors. Those who attempt to short-circuit this system are doing potentially irreparable harm to the integrity of the system. They may enrich themselves or their friends, but they are doing grievous damage to society at large.

1. [Broder] John M. Broder, “Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate,” New York Times, 2 Mar 2010, available at Online article.
2. [Brown] Richard C. Brown, Are Science And Mathematics Socially Constructed?: A Mathematician Encounters Postmodern Interpretations of Science, World Scientific Publications, New York, 2009.
3. [Kaufman] Leslie Kaufman, “Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets,” New York Times, 3 Mar 2010, available at Online article.
4. [Marshall] Michael Marshall, “Which climate changes can be blamed on humans?” New Scientist, 5 Mar 2010, available at Online article.
5. [NASA] “2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade,” 21 Jan 2010, available at Online article.
6. [RealClimate] “IPCC errors: facts and spin,” 14 Feb 2010, available at Online article.
7. [Revkin] Andrew C. Revkin, “Lacis at NASA on Role of CO2 in Warming,” New York Times, 17 Feb 2010, available at Online article.
8. [Sachs] Jeffrey Sachs, “Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain,” Guardian, 19 Feb 2010, available at Online article.
9. [SMR-Creationism] “Have creationist writers uncovered significant technical issues that draw into question established theories of geology and evolution?” 9 Mar 2010, available at Online article.
10. [SMR-ID] “Have intelligent design writers uncovered significant technical issues that draw into question the established theories of geology and evolution?” 16 Jan 2010, available at Online article.
11. [Singer] “S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.: Recent Professional Activities,” Mar 1998, available at Online article.
12. [Vanderhooft] Christian Vanderhooft, “Bill to freeze greenhouse-gas controls clears another hurdle in Utah Legislature,” Salt Lake Tribune, 19 Feb 2010, available at Online article

Yes, the title is a bit cheeky, but let me explain.

One of the common refrains of creationists, as well as the millions of others (more than 40 percent of the American public) who do not accept modern old-earth geology and evolutionary biology (often for religious reasons), is that while some portions of modern science may be true, other portions, such as the notion that the earth and its fossils are many millions of years old, are suspect if not completely in error. In other words, many wish to “pick and choose” among the major precepts of modern science, accepting those that they feel are sound and rejecting others that they feel are not.

One of my favorite activities is hiking in the many lovely mountains and hills in the SF Bay Area. In the past few years, I have taken up “geocaching” in conjunction with my hikes. This consists of using a GPS receiver to find some of the hundreds of thousands of “geocaches,” namely small containers with log sheets (and, in some cases, goodies such as hiking supplies), which are hidden at spots whose GPS coordinates (i.e., latitude and longitude) are provided at:
http://www.geocaching.com.
Geocaching serves to “spice up” the activity of hiking, and, as a bonus, having a quality GPS receiver with high-resolution built-in maps is valuable protection against getting lost or disoriented in the hills, particularly when one heads off-trail.

It occurred to me yesterday, while out hiking, that every time I head out to find a geocache in the hills, I threaten to overturn the foundations of modern science, including portions of geology, evolutionary biology, cosmology, quantum physics, special and general relativity, electrical engineering, computer science, scientific computing, numerical analysis and mathematics. I mean this quite literally: the GPS system is a symphony of modern science and technology, and if any “instrument” of the symphony were found to be faulty, the entire system might well collapse. So any time a hiker uses a GPS unit to fix his or her position, or any time a driver uses a GPS unit to display his or her current location on a street map, he or she is performing a very exacting test of a long string of scientific principles. If it doesn’t work, there is a chance (admittedly small) that he or she may have uncovered a serious flaw in our understanding of scientific laws.

Furthermore, if the science underlying GPS technology were found to be faulty, much of the rest of modern science would also be drawn into question, including, for instance, geology and evolutionary biology. One key body of evidence in these fields are the radiometric dates of various rock layers, which are based on measurements of trace amounts of certain radioactive isotopes in rock minerals. A key assumption in these measurements is that radioactivity is correctly described by certain key principles of quantum mechanics, and that these principles do not change measurably over time, nor are they affected by temperature, pressure, magnetism or chemical combination. In a similar way, modern big bang cosmology is based in part on general relativity, and the calculated age of the universe had better not be less than the age of rocks on the earth, or else we have a major problem! Thus any scientific experiments or measurements that threaten the integrity of either quantum physics or general relativity pose a grave challenge to both modern geology and evolutionary biology.

Now consider:

1. The GPS system relies heavily on the principles of quantum physics. In particular, each of the 24 GPS system satellites, which orbit the earth at an altitude of approximately 20,200 km (12,550 miles), contains an atomic clock that must generate an exceedingly finely tuned frequency (10.23 MHz), and the operation of this clock is based critically on principles of quantum physics. If this frequency were to change even slightly, because the laws of quantum physics underlying the atomic clock are not understood correctly or change with time, this would wreak utter havoc on the GPS system — see [GPS2009].
2. Both the GPS satellite system, as well as handheld GPS units (including GPS units now used in many cars), use a large amount of sophisticated custom-designed computer circuitry — memory chips, processor chips and clock controllers, that often press the state of the art of semiconductor design, because of the severe competitive pressure to deliver GPS-based devices at the best performance for the lowest price. These chips, like numerous others in our high-tech world, are designed based on the laws of quantum physics in a critical way. Thus if these laws are not understood clearly, or if they do not apply in certain exotic settings such as in outer space, or if they change gradually over time, then then it is possible that GPS devices would start to fail at some point.
3. The GPS system also critically relies on Einstein’s relativity, both special relativity (the slowing down of clocks moving at very high speed) and general relativity (the slowing down of clocks in strong gravitational fields). Einstein himself initially doubted that anyone would ever be able to measure such effects. But in the GPS system, such effects are not only measurable, but indeed must be taken into account, or otherwise errors would quickly accumulate to the point that the system would be hopelessly inaccurate — see [GPS2009].
4. The design of chips, and, for that matter, the original design of the GPS system itself, has relied on heavy-duty computations, in some cases using powerful supercomputers that have been designed specifically for scientific and engineering usage. These computations, in turn, rely on principles of applied mathematics and numerical analysis to ensure, for instance, that solutions converge to the true answers and that round-off errors do not threaten the integrity of the results. These principles, in turn, are encapsulated in large computer programs, often incorporating tens of thousands of lines of code, which employ advanced algorithms, data structures, and parallel programming constructs. And, as we all well know, computer programs often have “bugs,” in spite of the best efforts to remove them. In any event, quantum-physics-based computer codes are used for research in both pure and applied physics, and thus any serious difficulties uncovered in such codes might impact both the technology and our understanding of the physical laws.
5. Finally, all of the above disciplines (quantum physics, relativity, electrical engineering and scientific computing) rely heavily on sophisticated mathematics. If some fundamental flaw were discovered in the edifice of modern mathematics, the entire structure of modern science and technology, certainly including GPS and even some aspects of geology and biology, would be drawn into question.

In spite of all these obstacles, my latest “experiment” passed with flying colors — I found one geocache within six meters (roughly 20 feet) of the posted coordinates on the geocaching website, and I found another within three meters (roughly 10 feet) of the posted coordinates — both well within the specifications of GPS technology. In other words, even though the hikers who placed these geocaches measured their locations using a configuration of satellites completely different than those visible in the sky when I made my measurements, and even though each of these measurements relied on an long “symphony” of modern science and technology, and even though the GPS handheld units we used most likely were designed by different design teams and incorporated different hardware chips, somehow all of this “symphony” worked just fine.

Note that this means not only that we understand the fundamental laws of physics very accurately, but also that these laws do not appear to be changing significantly with the passage of time. The same GPS design specifications made in the 1960s and 1970s still work today, 40 years later. If there were even the slightest change in these underlying laws or physical constants, we might start seeing inexplicable errors in GPS positions. But we don’t.

In similar way, numerous experiments have been performed to see whether rates of radioactive decay change with heat, pressure or magnetic fields, but no variation has been noted for any of the isotopes used in geologic dating [Dalrymple2004, pg. 58-60]. Also, the spectral lines of light rays reaching the earth from distant stars, generated by atomic processes that occurred millions (or even billions) of years ago, exhibit the same frequency patterns that are predicted by the laws of quantum physics as we understand them today, and which we see confirmed in modern-day experiments [Barrow2007, pg. 124-128].

In short, the “pick and choose” approach to modern science simply does not work, and is certainly not recommended as a “solution” to the conflict some see between science and religion. Beyond a certain level, all of modern science is interconnected, and thus one cannot accept one large portion of modern science but reject another. If nothing else, such an approach is intellectually inconsistent — if one really believes that geology and biology should be rejected because radiometric dating (and thus modern physics) is not reliable, then one should avoid using any smartphone with GPS mapping capabilities (such as the new iPhones), since, as we have seen, at some level they are designed on the same physical principles as radiometric dating. But somehow I don’t think anyone will give up their iPhones just yet.

References

1. [Barrow2007] John D. Barrow, New Theories of Everything, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2007.
2. [Dalrymple2004] G. Brent Dalrymple, Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The Age of Earth and its Cosmic Surroundings, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 2004.
3. [GPS2009] “Global Positioning System,” Wikipedia article, 2009, available at
   Online article.

As anyone who knows me (the editor of the sciencemeetsreligion.org website) will attest, I have feet planted firmly in both the scientific and the religious realms.  On one hand, I am a well-known scientist, employed at a large research laboratory, with 3 books and over 125 published technical articles.  Yet I also have deep religious roots — five generations of Mormon ancestors, including, for instance, the second convert to be baptized to the LDS faith in Great Britain.

Thus it is with great concern and, I confess, a certain measure of sadness, that I have witnessed the increasing polarization of the scientific and religious communities in recent years.

On one hand, I see many (especially in America but also in Europe and British Commonwealth nations) viewing modern science as synonymous with atheism and evil, and responsible, in large measure, for the perceived moral decline of society.  In the second decade of the 21st century, creationism, namely the completely unscientific view that the earth and its living organisms are merely a few thousand years old, is on the rise.  “Intelligent design,” a stylishly named movement that belies its fundamentalist foundation, has convinced millions that key scientific theories are riddled with serious errors.

On the other hand, several leading scientists and scholars, including one (Dawkins) whom I greatly admire, have lashed out against religion in polemic books and essays.  Some of their criticisms may have merit, but their writings have significant errors and misconceptions, such as holding up a highly fundamentalistic corner of modern religion as representative of modern religious thought.  And whatever the merits of their arguments, their in-your-face style is a public relations nightmare for those who are trying to defend the teaching of no-nonsense science in public classrooms.

I myself have personally witnessed both sides of this “battle.”  On one hand, my scientific views have been challenged on numerous occasions, both in my personal life and in online forums, by those who reject much of modern science, including, for instance, the entire evolutionary worldview (or even the basics of old-earth geology).  On a few occasions, I have done some Google searches on various topics, and have been shocked to see that links to legitimate science sites are overwhelmed by a much larger number of links to sites promoting material that is utterly at odds with modern scientific knowledge.  With so many sources of misinformation, even open-minded people in many cases have been drawn into believing that there is a “conspiracy” among conventional scientists to withhold the “truth.”

On the other hand, I have seen numerous scientific colleagues regard any sort of religious belief or devotion as downright contemptible in the 21st century.   In most cases they will not express their contempt to my face (although some have done just that), but it is evident from their comments where their views lie.

In November 2009, I had an epiphany.  I suddenly realized that if I didn’t want to live in an increasingly polarized world, I need to speak out for harmony, not warfare, between science and religion.  I recognized that the many who have been attracted to the claims of creationism and intelligent design deserve some straight answers — some solid and concise explanations of why these claims do not hold water.  And I also recognized that those who have read the harsh criticisms of religion from the likes of Harris and Hitchens need to understand that the vast majority of scientists do not feel this way, and in fact that many prominent scientists affirm religious faith.

A few days later, while visiting with some colleagues at a major university, I decided to go ahead with this project.  I had in mind a fairly modest endeavor — place some questions and answers on a website.  Beginning the first of December 2009, in whatever spare time I could muster while managing a large proposal effort at work, I wrote up the material I had envisioned.  This turned out to be substantially more work that I had thought, especially unearthing authoritative quotes and detailed references for all this material.  On 23 December, I declared the project completed, with some 40 separate articles and nearly 300 pages of material (although I have polished and improved a few items since then, and will continue to do so).

So what I have learned in this process?  I am now convinced more than ever that science and religion have much to be gained by respectfully considering the best ideas of the other.  Indeed, I have to ask, “Why all the fighting?”  Don’t we all share a sense of awe and wonder at the magnificence of the universe?  Isn’t it remarkable how lawful everything is?  And isn’t it particularly remarkable that we humans, who evolved on the African savannas to hunt game and live in tribes, now, just a few thousand years later, can comprehend the very laws governing the universe?  As physicist John Barrow notes, nothing in our current understanding of physical laws, including quantum physics and the anthropic principle of cosmology, requires that kind of involvement. 

Why does the fact that we have been able to discover many of the laws governing the universe detract from our sense of wonder?  To the contrary, both scientists and nonscientists can stand in awe at the majesty of the universe, which is now known to be much vaster, more intricate and more magnificent than ever before realized in human history. Why isn’t that enough? It is for me.